Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Increasingly they began to judge their challenge to Republicans by how much money they raised. You talk to [Marcy] Kaptur from Cleveland, she says, we go into the Democratic caucus in the House, we go in talking money, we stay talking money, and we go out with our quotas for money. …

As a result they took the economic issues off the table that used to win again and again in the thirties and forties for the Democrats. The labor issues, the living wage issues, the health insurance issue, pension issues. And that of course was a huge bonanza for the Republican Party because the Republican Party could not contend on economic issues. They contended on racial issues, on bigotry issues, and that’s how they began to take control of the solid Democratic South after the civil rights laws were passed.

Raising money from Wall Street, from the drug companies, from health insurance companies, the energy companies, kept [Democrats] from their main contrasting advantage over the Republicans, which is, in FDR’s parlance, “The Democratic Party is the party of working families, Republicans are the party of the rich.” That flipped it completely and left the Democrats extremely vulnerable.

As a result they drew back geographically, to the east coast, west coast and so on.

And that created another millstone: You don’t run a 50-state [presidential] campaign. If you don’t run a 50-state campaign, number one you’re strengthening the opposing party in those states you’ve abandoned, so they can take those states for granted and concentrate on the states that are in the grey area. That was flub number one.

Flub number two is what Ben Barnes, the politically-savvy guy in Texas, told me. He said, when you don’t contest the presidential race in Texas, it rots the whole party down … all the way to mayors and city council. So it replicates this decadence and powerlessness for future years.

When they abandoned the red states, they abandoned five states in the Rocky Mountain area, and started out with a handicap of nine or ten senators.

kalm wrote:As Ralph points out, instead of self-reflection, all they do is blame others for their losing.

Increasingly they began to judge their challenge to Republicans by how much money they raised. You talk to [Marcy] Kaptur from Cleveland, she says, we go into the Democratic caucus in the House, we go in talking money, we stay talking money, and we go out with our quotas for money. …

As a result they took the economic issues off the table that used to win again and again in the thirties and forties for the Democrats. The labor issues, the living wage issues, the health insurance issue, pension issues. And that of course was a huge bonanza for the Republican Party because the Republican Party could not contend on economic issues. They contended on racial issues, on bigotry issues, and that’s how they began to take control of the solid Democratic South after the civil rights laws were passed.

Raising money from Wall Street, from the drug companies, from health insurance companies, the energy companies, kept [Democrats] from their main contrasting advantage over the Republicans, which is, in FDR’s parlance, “The Democratic Party is the party of working families, Republicans are the party of the rich.” That flipped it completely and left the Democrats extremely vulnerable.

As a result they drew back geographically, to the east coast, west coast and so on.

And that created another millstone: You don’t run a 50-state [presidential] campaign. If you don’t run a 50-state campaign, number one you’re strengthening the opposing party in those states you’ve abandoned, so they can take those states for granted and concentrate on the states that are in the grey area. That was flub number one.

Flub number two is what Ben Barnes, the politically-savvy guy in Texas, told me. He said, when you don’t contest the presidential race in Texas, it rots the whole party down … all the way to mayors and city council. So it replicates this decadence and powerlessness for future years.

When they abandoned the red states, they abandoned five states in the Rocky Mountain area, and started out with a handicap of nine or ten senators.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ral ... n-history/

Jjoey52 wrote:

kalm wrote:As Ralph points out, instead of self-reflection, all they do is blame others for their losing.



https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ral ... n-history/

The irony of the Dems stealing the race issue was that they were the ones fighting integration the hardest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Grizalltheway wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:

The irony of the Dems stealing the race issue was that they were the ones fighting integration the hardest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, and don't get me started on those damn Whigs!

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Yeah, and don't get me started on those damn Whigs!

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:

I've hit it

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think one can ignore structural system issues. The Democratic candidate for President won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Democrats lost the cumulative House vote by 1.1 percentage points but that translated into the Republicans holding a 11 percentage point advantage in the House (gerrymandering at work). Democrats won the cumulative Senate Race vote by 11 percentage points but they're in the minority in the Senate. Note that in the Senate Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators even though California has 67 times the population. At the State level you have stuff like Republicans winning something like 48% of the votes in a State Assembly election and ending up with something like 60% of the seats (gerrymandering again).

I think we're in a situation right now where the majority of the people in the country narrowly favor the Democrats but the structure of our system has created a situation in which the Party supported by the minority of the people is in pretty close to total control.

I also think it's just a matter of time before that changes because the majority of the people that supports the Democrats will continue to increase. At some point the dam will break. That is UNLESS the Republicans actually start to change minds. And right now they're not doing that. Not at all. All they're doing is reinforcing the ultimately irresistible tide of resentment against them.

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think one can ignore structural system issues. The Democratic candidate for President won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Democrats lost the cumulative House vote by 1.1 percentage points but that translated into the Republicans holding a 11 percentage point advantage in the House (gerrymandering at work). Democrats won the cumulative Senate Race vote by 11 percentage points but they're in the minority in the Senate. Note that in the Senate Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators even though California has 67 times the population. At the State level you have stuff like Republicans winning something like 48% of the votes in a State Assembly election and ending up with something like 60% of the seats (gerrymandering again).

I think we're in a situation right now where the majority of the people in the country narrowly favor the Democrats but the structure of our system has created a situation in which the Party supported by the minority of the people is in pretty close to total control.

I also think it's just a matter of time before that changes because the majority of the people that supports the Democrats will continue to increase. At some point the dam will break. That is UNLESS the Republicans actually start to change minds. And right now they're not doing that. Not at all. All they're doing is reinforcing the ultimately irresistible tide of resentment against them.

Nah

If the economy tanks then it will be a problem for the repubs

That's what got Trump elected in the first place

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think one can ignore structural system issues. The Democratic candidate for President won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Democrats lost the cumulative House vote by 1.1 percentage points but that translated into the Republicans holding a 11 percentage point advantage in the House (gerrymandering at work). Democrats won the cumulative Senate Race vote by 11 percentage points but they're in the minority in the Senate. Note that in the Senate Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators even though California has 67 times the population. At the State level you have stuff like Republicans winning something like 48% of the votes in a State Assembly election and ending up with something like 60% of the seats (gerrymandering again).

I think we're in a situation right now where the majority of the people in the country narrowly favor the Democrats but the structure of our system has created a situation in which the Party supported by the minority of the people is in pretty close to total control.

I also think it's just a matter of time before that changes because the majority of the people that supports the Democrats will continue to increase. At some point the dam will break. That is UNLESS the Republicans actually start to change minds. And right now they're not doing that. Not at all. All they're doing is reinforcing the ultimately irresistible tide of resentment against them.

Nah

If the economy tanks then it will be a problem for the repubs

That's what got Trump elected in the first place

Nah

If the economy tanks then it will be a problem for the repubs

That's what got Trump elected in the first place

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think one can ignore structural system issues. The Democratic candidate for President won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Democrats lost the cumulative House vote by 1.1 percentage points but that translated into the Republicans holding a 11 percentage point advantage in the House (gerrymandering at work). Democrats won the cumulative Senate Race vote by 11 percentage points but they're in the minority in the Senate. Note that in the Senate Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators even though California has 67 times the population. At the State level you have stuff like Republicans winning something like 48% of the votes in a State Assembly election and ending up with something like 60% of the seats (gerrymandering again).

I think we're in a situation right now where the majority of the people in the country narrowly favor the Democrats but the structure of our system has created a situation in which the Party supported by the minority of the people is in pretty close to total control.

I also think it's just a matter of time before that changes because the majority of the people that supports the Democrats will continue to increase. At some point the dam will break. That is UNLESS the Republicans actually start to change minds. And right now they're not doing that. Not at all. All they're doing is reinforcing the ultimately irresistible tide of resentment against them.

Nah

If the economy tanks then it will be a problem for the repubs

That's what got Trump elected in the first place

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think one can ignore structural system issues. The Democratic candidate for President won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Democrats lost the cumulative House vote by 1.1 percentage points but that translated into the Republicans holding a 11 percentage point advantage in the House (gerrymandering at work). Democrats won the cumulative Senate Race vote by 11 percentage points but they're in the minority in the Senate. Note that in the Senate Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators even though California has 67 times the population. At the State level you have stuff like Republicans winning something like 48% of the votes in a State Assembly election and ending up with something like 60% of the seats (gerrymandering again).

I think we're in a situation right now where the majority of the people in the country narrowly favor the Democrats but the structure of our system has created a situation in which the Party supported by the minority of the people is in pretty close to total control.

I also think it's just a matter of time before that changes because the majority of the people that supports the Democrats will continue to increase. At some point the dam will break. That is UNLESS the Republicans actually start to change minds. And right now they're not doing that. Not at all. All they're doing is reinforcing the ultimately irresistible tide of resentment against them.

Jjoey52 wrote:Take away the liberal bastion of California, the popular vote was very close.

Jjoey52 wrote:Wyoming and California have the same number of Senators as this was agreed on at the time to protect smaller states. The house is based on population with Cali getting over 10% of the seats. Without this arrangement the country would never have come in to existence. Also the smaller states will NEVER agree to changing the Senate.

Also, there are 50 separate elections, Trump won over 30. maybe if the skank visited Wisconsin and other close states she may have won a few more of the elections. Take away the liberal bastion of California, the popular vote was very close.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:Wyoming and California have the same number of Senators as this was agreed on at the time to protect smaller states. The house is based on population with Cali getting over 10% of the seats. Without this arrangement the country would never have come in to existence. Also the smaller states will NEVER agree to changing the Senate.

Also, there are 50 separate elections, Trump won over 30. maybe if the skank visited Wisconsin and other close states she may have won a few more of the elections. Take away the liberal bastion of California, the popular vote was very close.

All I'm saying is that when you look at the overall sentiment of the total population of the country there is a disconnect between the level of dominance of the Republican Party in elective office right now and that overall public sentiment

Otherwise: I have no problem with the way the Senate is handled. I do like that as a means of protecting the interests of smaller States. I do think the Electoral College system of electing a President should be consigned to the ash heap of history. And I think something needs to be done to reign in gerrymandering of House districts.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
All I'm saying is that when you look at the overall sentiment of the total population of the country there is a disconnect between the level of dominance of the Republican Party in elective office right now and that overall public sentiment

Otherwise: I have no problem with the way the Senate is handled. I do like that as a means of protecting the interests of smaller States. I do think the Electoral College system of electing a President should be consigned to the ash heap of history. And I think something needs to be done to reign in gerrymandering of House districts.

Scrap Electoral College. Check. Stop that nasty Republican gerrymandering (we all know those virginal Donks don't do it). Check. Yeah, JSO is a conservative.

houndawg wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Scrap Electoral College. Check. Stop that nasty Republican gerrymandering (we all know those virginal Donks don't do it). Check. Yeah, JSO is a conservative.

Scrap the whole thing and switch to a Parliament.

“Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment,” Assange wrote.

There’s an obvious comeback here: Assange and WikiLeaks likely played a role in the election outcome by leaking hacked Democratic Party emails that were presumably provided by Russian intelligence, either directly or through an intermediary. But the questions Assange has posed are nonetheless valid.

“Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders?” Assange wrote. “A party elite that maintains that it is the ‘crime of the century’ for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.”

kalm wrote:

“Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment,” Assange wrote.

There’s an obvious comeback here: Assange and WikiLeaks likely played a role in the election outcome by leaking hacked Democratic Party emails that were presumably provided by Russian intelligence, either directly or through an intermediary. But the questions Assange has posed are nonetheless valid.

“Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders?” Assange wrote. “A party elite that maintains that it is the ‘crime of the century’ for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.”

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/26/julian- ... is-doomed/

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/26/julian- ... is-doomed/

when i click on articles like that i go straight to the comments section


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ivytalk wrote: Scrap Electoral College. Check. Stop that nasty Republican gerrymandering (we all know those virginal Donks don't do it). Check. Yeah, JSO is a conservative.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Scrap Electoral College. Check. Stop that nasty Republican gerrymandering (we all know those virginal Donks don't do it). Check. Yeah, JSO is a conservative.

Gerrymandering has been going on since at least as long ago as the 1700s (before the term was coined) and both parties have done it. I don't like gerrymandering for things like, for example, making sure Blacks get to elect a Black representative either.

I have no problem with having a buffer in the form of a Senate that has two representatives from each State regardless of population.

But I don't see the wisdom of continuing with the Electoral College. One of the arguments for having it, maybe the primary argument, was to make sure that candidates didn't ignore some States because they would just go to where most of the population was. And what we have is candidates largely ignoring most States because they identify the ones that are "swing" then focus their efforts on those.

In today's context, if we want candidates to be cognizant of trying to win every vote of every person regardless of the State they live in, we would go to electing the President via the popular vote.

Plus we just had a pretty self evident "fail" of the Electoral College system. It generated a pretty darned absurd result.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Scrap Electoral College. Check. Stop that nasty Republican gerrymandering (we all know those virginal Donks don't do it). Check. Yeah, JSO is a conservative.

Gerrymandering has been going on since at least as long ago as the 1700s (before the term was coined) and both parties have done it. I don't like gerrymandering for things like, for example, making sure Blacks get to elect a Black representative either.

I have no problem with having a buffer in the form of a Senate that has two representatives from each State regardless of population.

But I don't see the wisdom of continuing with the Electoral College. One of the arguments for having it, maybe the primary argument, was to make sure that candidates didn't ignore some States because they would just go to where most of the population was. And what we have is candidates largely ignoring most States because they identify the ones that are "swing" then focus their efforts on those.

In today's context, if we want candidates to be cognizant of trying to win every vote of every person regardless of the State they live in, we would go to electing the President via the popular vote.

Plus we just had a pretty self evident "fail" of the Electoral College system. It generated a pretty darned absurd result.